Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11

By way of agreeing with you (and also not commenting on the 9/11 theories), it's instructive to note that the accepted narrative of 9/11 - 19 mostly Saudi hijackers, etc - is itself a conspiracy.

Lava is molten stone. Why would there be stone on an airplane? In a 100-story building?There was no lava. Dude, your stove at home goes to maybe 500 degrees. Barely hot enough to burn paper. The burning jet fuel caused temperatures of more than 2000 degrees. The fires were so hot they burned for three months after the buildings collapsed. Yes. But it's abundantly obvious from the videos that the towers collapsed from the top down.Which is what you'd expect from a weakening of their structure by fire somewhere near the top. Gravity was that force. Except that they were crushed by the top floors. Because a million tons of building debris landed square on top of it. Why wouldn't it have collapsed?You're not making any sense.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

There was no molten steel: World Trade Center Investigation | NISTWhat you're seeing in the video is just flaming ash.Temperatures were not hot enough to liquify steel; of course, about 500 degrees shy of its melting point, steel loses all but 10% of its original strength, like softening chocolate. It might have been molten aluminum from the airframe of the 747, but I doubt it.Either way, of course, it's irrelevant - explosives don't melt steel, either. Thermite just isn't a reasonable explanation since it has to burn in continuous contact in order to cut; that's impossible to achieve against a vertical support beam. That's WTC 6 in the center; WTC 7 is the hole in the upper right. It doesn't look like it came down "perfect" to me. It looks like it came down in a heap after being crushed by falling debris. Have you read it? Maybe you should before you make claims about what is or isn't in the report.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Narrow the image.

Really? Because it seems like we've been answering your questions as we go.Of course, if you're asking ridiculous stuff like "why did molten lava pour out of WTC 1 and 2?" then the only real answer is that there's something very wrong with you which prevents you from recognizing bullshit when it's presented, steaming, on a plate before you. Well, no, you haven't. You've heard the conspiracy side. Did you read the NIST investigation I linked to, earlier? How do you respond to its points? I;m not disagreeing - but 9/11 doesn't have to be an inside job for that to be true.Indeed, if it your conspiracy theories are true, doesn't that undercut your point? You say that terrorists caused 9/11 happened because we're over there killing people; but isn't your position that terrorists didn't cause 9/11?How do you reconcile these two positions? How do you justify the use of 9/11 as an example of decades of failed terror policy when you're claiming 9/11 didn't have anything to do with terrorists?

I'm telling you again that it was because of falling debris. After being hit by that much material, how could it not collapse?